A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | June 11, 2014 | Committee Room | Finance on Unemployment

Meeting will come to order please. Members will take their seats. And
for those of us who can’t hear whose phone might ring during the
committee meeting, please turn off your phone, so Senator Ford doesn’t
have to stop when he’s talking about me and tell me to answer my phone.
Let’s see, we have some sergeant in arms staff that we will recognize
and thank. Steve McCain, Ken Kirby, Isaac Walker, and Billy Fitzhugh.
Thank you all for what you do, for maintaining peace and order in the
room. Our pages today I will recognize. Sal Womack from Sanford, Laura
Payne from Lexington, Senators Rabon and Bingham respectively. Marybell
Skoggin from Raleigh, Senator Berger. Marybell are you any kin to
Professor Skoggin, who used to teach at State College? He was a fine
man. Saul Kurtz from Raleigh, Mr. Stein. Colby Wazell from Wendell,
Senator J. Jackson. Adriana Nicholson from Durham, Senator McKissick.
Out in Gaston, there we go thank you for being here Raleigh, Senator
Blue. Will Haven from Durham, Senator Woodard. Will Campbell from Mt.
Airy, Senator J. Jackson. And Will Song from Raleigh, Senator Stein.
Welcome to you all, I hope you’re enjoying the week and learning a lot,
taking something home with you. We have a long schedule today. We’re
going to run through it and we’re going to get through it. So if you’re
next in line, please be prepared to come up and take over. We will start
with Senator Bill 741, Senator Barefoot if you’d come forward please.
Add Franklin City tax, before recordation. There’s a PCS on this, a
motion from Senator Tillman. To hear the PCS, those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carried. We are ready to hear the PCS, Senator Barefoot.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill allows the county
board of the commissioners and Franklin, Bladen and Columbus Counties to
pass a resolution to require the registered deeds not to accept any
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me, are there any questions or comments from
the committee? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you.
Senator Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The local bill I move for a favorable
report. They’re all in favor of it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Is
there any comment from this committee on that before we entertain the
motions, we have a motion from Senator Tillman for the PCS unfavorable
to the original. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed no, motion
carried. Thank you, Senator Barefoot. Okay, thank you. Senate Bill 761,
another local bill. Rockingham de-annexation by Senator McLaurin. And
this is not a PCS. This is a straight local bill. 767. Thank you. Turn
your mic on, please sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman,
members of the committee. This is a very simple bill, no opposition,
de-annexes an area in the city of Rockingham that requested the property
owners. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Senator Hartsell, you have a
motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move for a favorable report, Mr. Chairman.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion by Senator Hartsell for a favorable report on
Senate Bill 767. Comments? Hearing none, all those please say aye in
favor, opposed ??, motion carried. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 871. Raleigh Durham de-annexation, annex.
Senator McKissick. This is a PCS. Motion to hear the PCS please, from
Senator Tillman. Those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion
carries. Senator McKissick. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a very simple
local bill. It de-annexations one part of the land from Raleigh and
annexes it to Durham. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wanted you to
finish, Senator McKissick, because we do like hearing from you, on
occasion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. Senator McKissick loves to
talk. Therefore I’m going to make a, I love Senator McKissick. He
doesn’t talk online, he talks on camera. But I think this is a great
bill. I move for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you,
Senator Jones. Any further discussion from the committee? [SPEAKER
CHANGES] Mr. Chairman.

Senator Hunt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Being the representative of the town
that is getting this property taken away from them, I thought maybe I
ought to at least say that I checked with the Mayor and they said it was
alright. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you so
much. ?? in discussion. I’m sorry. Senator Barringer. [SPEAKER CHANGES]
Turnabout’s fair play. Senator McKissick, I would like for you to
describe and define for me what’s on line 9, page 2, please. [SPEAKER
CHANGES] What we have there is further information which elaborates on
the details of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES]
Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will you agree to meet with me after this
to explain your bill fully so I won’t go after you on the floor?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I agree at any and all times to meet with all members
of this body to confer about any bills that may come before us or put
before us for consideration, so yes, including you, Senator Barringer.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator
Apodaca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Where is this
property, Senator, McKissick? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This property is located
at the Brier Creek area in Wake County, not too far up the 540 corridor.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Senator.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Do these folks want to go to Durham? [SPEAKER CHANGES]
Yes they do. There was an annexation agreement reached back in 1999. In
fact, I was on city council and was involved in those negotiations where
the city of Raleigh agreed to have certain properties in Durham County
and the city of Durham was going to have certain properties in Wake
County, based upon utility service agreements and who would be most
cost-effective in servicing it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator
McKissick. Concise ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We
haven’t voted yet, Senator. Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you.
Senator McKissick, just a comment. I have been accused on occasion of
telling Durham what to do, and I want records to show that you did not
contact me on this annexation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is absolutely
correct, yes. You represent no part of Durham or Wake Counties. [SPEAKER
CHANGES] Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, we have a motion.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry, the Gentleman
from Durham. Yes, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to comment to
Senator Tucker, Durham is very fond of telling Senator Tucker what to do
too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, is that what to do or where to go?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Well they’ve actually taken both actions, as a matter
of public record. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a motion for favorable
report on the PCS from Senator Ford, unfavorable to the original. All
those in favor, please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]
Opposed, no. The ayes have it. Thank you, Senator McKissick. As you sow,
so shall you reap. Now Senator Hise, we have Senate Bill 874, and this
is an original bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, members of
the committee. This is a conclusion of I would say several years of
disagreement between the town of Spruce Pine and some property owners,
and they’ve finally come to one agreement that this property should no
longer be in the city limits of Spruce Pine to save everyone some time
and effort. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion, favorable. Move for a favorable…
Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was Mayor of the town, so I was in the
issue previously, but… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, motion. [SPEAKER
CHANGES] Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And
what is your motion, Senator Tucker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Favorable motion,
favorable to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thought that’s what it was; I
just wanted to hear you say it. Senator Apodaca? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr.
Chairman, a question for Senator Hise. Is it true you can stand in the
center of Spruce Pine and see all the city limits without squinting?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] It is not correct. We live in mountains, Senator
Apodaca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Hise. We have a motion for
a favorable report from Senator Tucker. All of those in favor, please
say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, light on.
Motion carried. Thank you, Senator Hise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator
Apodaca, Senate Bill 876. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And is there an amendment,
sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes there is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let’s get ready
to rumble. We’re ready, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to send forth an
amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The
chair has the amendment. So the members have copies? [SPEAKER CHANGES]
It’s technical in nature. I’m clarifying. Just a small clarifying
amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, you may explain the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] All the amendment does is being the language into
current times. It was written with the old statutes from way ago when
Senator Cook was young. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. We have a
motion from Senator Tillman to approve the amendment. Those is favor,
please say… Is there any discussion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER
CHANGES] Opposed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment
carried. Division.

And now we have, we’re to the original. Senator, as amended.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members, it’s a glorious day
when we can raise taxes and I’m glad to be here today to talk about
that. Senator Harrington asked me to bring this forth because she likes
to vacation in Brevard and would like to pay more for her meals so with
that in mind we’re going to add a 1.5% percent, wait a minute let me get
the right amount, yeah 1.5% to the sales price to prepare foods and
beverages sold within the city limits of Brevard. If you’ve been to
Brevard that’s not many places so they’re having some tough times, this
was brought to us by the town of Brevard and by most of the restaurants.
I ask for your support.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Senator. Members of the committee, do we have
comments or questions? Senator Tillman.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] I’d like to make a motion for a favorable report. If
they want to do it to themselves, I’ll help them do it.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you sir. We have one person who has signed up to
speak. Frank Grey, is he here? Mr. Grey if you would be so kind,
identify yourself.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee my
name is Frank Grey representing the restaurant and lodging association
and I want the committee to know our members are opposed to any new
meals taxes. You hear a lot of occupancy tax bills from time to time and
of course the occupancy tax is paid primarily by visitors. Meals taxes
on the other hand are paid primarily by the local folks and our position
through the years has been that if there are needed public improvements
that benefit the whole community they should be paid for by general tax
revenues so we reluctantly oppose this legislation. There are 500+
cities and a hundred counties, there are only five jurisdictions that
have a meals tax today, there hasn’t been a new one enacted in many many
years so this would be a major precedent and we would ask for you not to
pass this bill. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Grey. Members of the committee any
questions or comments? Yes you may sir.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Grey can I ask you a quick question please? I was
legislator of the year for the restaurant association, do I have to
return my award? You don’t have to answer that.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] I think that was on gross sales.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Okay we have a motion from Senator Tillman to improve
the senate bill 876 as amended. Those amended of the motion please say
aye. Opposed no. Motion carried. Thank you Senator Apodaca. House bill
569, Senator Tillman. Foxfire Satellite Annexation.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. There’s two hundred people
ready to go to work Monday on this, it’s a big project and everybody is
for this to annex this developmental area into the foxfire village. The
foxfire village will profit and want this and it will be a good
economic.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Senator Tillman. We have a motion from
Senator Apodaca to approve. Any discussion? Hearing none all those in
favor of the motion for house bill 569 please say aye. Opposed no. Ayes
have it. Thank you. That brings us to senate bill 648. Do we have the
correct version? Okay we do have the correct version. NC Commerce
Protection Act of 2013. Third edition, so check and make sure you have
V3 on the bottom, that everyone has the proper edition, and that will be
presented by Senator ???.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This bill has been vetted many
times over the last couple of years and it was certainly vetted
yesterday in J1, but the reason it’s here in finance committee is
because, let me get my page right, page 2 line 26 there’s a $50 for any
attorney wishing to file to join the ??? lawsuit. And I would ask you
for a favorable report.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you and Senators the only discussion we’re having
today is on that $50 fee. The merits of the bill..

been, well, well vetted so unless Senator Apodaca has something else
he'd like to add?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wondered if we could increase that fee, it
doesn't seem like nearly enough.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Hear the wishes of this committee, Mr. Chairman.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Then we have a motion by Senator Apodaca for favorable
report on Senate Bill 648. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed
no. Motion carried.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. House Bill 558. Soil and Water
District Refunds, that. Representative Whitmire? My calender had changed
that's why you had a different one. But you have the floor sir. This is
a PCS but it came over that way. Correct? Good Enough, go ahead.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you Committee. The PCS
actually rolled in Senator Jenkins Senate Bill 261 that had passed the
Senate last June, 44 to nothing. The original piece of 558 which remains
intact does the following three things: it cleans up some sloppiness in
the tax code, well we've got 21 sewer and water districts that don't get
their sales tax rebated and the other 76 do; soil and water helps
property owners, property rights, farmers, it's good for agriculture; it
also keeps water clean and that portion of it only cost 7,641 dollars to
fix so it benefits 28 senate districts and I ask for your support and
welcome questions.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Whitmire. There any
questions or comments from the committee? Senator Apodaca moves for a
favorable report, seconded by Senator Rucho. All those in favor please
say aye. Opposed? ?? Motion carried. Thank you, Representative Whitmire.
House Bill 618, Amend Firearm Restoration. Senator Cook? Thank you sir,
you have the floor.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill corrects the
situation wherein folks who had their firearm rights restored had their
rights taken away again through no fault of their own. Some folks
originally committed offences which resulted in a loss of their firearm
rights for a specified period of time. After the specified time had
past, their rights were restored. However, a new law was subsequently
passed that inadvertently took away their rights again. This bill simply
restores their firearm rights that should have been protected with a
grandfather clause in the last bill. I ask for your support.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Cook. Questions and comments from
the committee? Hearing none, Senator Warren moves for favorable report.
All those in favor please say aye. Opposed no. Motion carried. Thank you
Senator Cook.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, members.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1069, Unemployment Insurance Law Changes.
Representative Howard? Senator Rucho? I was going to say we'd save the
best for the last Representative, but I'm afraid I was in error.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the finance
committee. The joint unemployment insurance commission spent a lot of
time working along with the Division of Employment Security and the
Department of Commerce in trying to put together some important changes.
I will allow, ask the staff if they wouldn't mind going through it so
that everyone can understand that and also, Mr. Chairman, I do have,
[SPEAKER CHANGES] An amendment, yes.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] and if you'd like I can either do the amendment now.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Please, do the amendment first.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you. Members of the committee, their were
a number of questions on the independent commission which is designed to
offer an independent review outside of the DES and what this does is it
establishes a guideline as to how the members are appointed in the
staggered terms and the like. I will ask staff to further explain this
so that you can completely understand what we're trying to include in
this amendment to

House 1069.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Chairman. Cindy Averett. The unemployment insurance
oversight committee spent quite a bit of time looking at several
different issue and as Senator Rucho said, each part in this bill is a
separate issue that the committee considered. One of the issues that was
in the original bill that came to you had to do with the board of
review, that section part was taken out in the house but is being
resubmitted into the bill here. There was some concerns over the statute
didn’t provide enough information as to how the confirmation and
appointment of members would work so what this amendment does is to
appeal the current subsection that deals with the appointment and
confirmation of board members and puts it into its own statute. The bill
as it came out of the study committee would have had changed how those
members are appointed. Right now there are three members appointed by
the governor, confirmed by the general assembly. As it came out of the
oversight committee it was going to move two of those appointments to
the general assembly but this amendment keeps all of the appointments
with the governor, it continues the confirmation process but just puts
timelines in so it’s clear how that confirmation process works. The
second part of the bill amendment which begins on page 2, line 27 is
creating staggered terms. One of the things that right now, all of the
members serve four year terms, they all went on at the same point and
would go off at the same point. The study committee felt that for
purposes of having continuity on the board that there should be
staggered terms. There was also some confusion as to whether or not the
current board had been properly constituted. The current board members
names have not been submitted to the general assembly, they’ve not been
confirmed by the general assembly. Last year the general assembly
enacted some un-codified legislation that said if the governor makes
these appointments by September 1st, the general assembly waives the
confirmation process. Those appointments were not made until December so
that statute that you passed last year with that deadline in it is no
longer applicable so this bill just repeals that un-codified section
from last year and it now provides who sits on the board of review and
it sets up those staggered terms and you can see that on the last page
of the amendment how it sets up the staggered term with one term ending
this June 30th and a member being appointed by the governor to serve
four years, the current member will serve until June 30th, 2015 then
another appointment will be made for four years and lastly a member will
serve until 2017. So this is what sets up your stagger provision terms
and provides that the members will be appointed as provided in this
bill. Lastly, section 6.3 which begins on line 19 of page 3, the
division of employment security asked the oversight committee for some
comfort in knowing that in the time that we have not had a board of
review appointed and decisions have been made by the assistant secretary
that there be some validation of those decisions and so that is what
section 6.3 does. It provides that any decisions issued by the assistant
secretary or by the secretary of commerce designee or by the current
sitting board of review will be considered as if those decisions had
been issued as the law provides, given the same legal effect. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Ms. Averett. Any comments or questions?
Senator Tucker.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. May I address this to Senator
Rucho?
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Please.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Rucho in that part 4 on duration of
unemployment benefits, is this address the mining industry or the
seasonal worker or?
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Tucker we’re on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Oh I’m sorry, I apologize.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] But you may have the floor when we come back to the
original bill. Any further discussion or questions on the amendment?
Hearing none, all of those in favor of the amendment please say aye.
Opposed no. Amendment carried and will be added to the bill. Senator
Rucho you have the floor of the..
[SPEAKER CHANGE] I will ask that I guess Ms. Averett will go through the
UI bill so we can get a full understanding of it.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Chairman, Jan Paul will go over the part one of the
bill, confidentiality of information, and Greg Roney will cover the
remaining parts and they’ll be happy to do that if it’s okay.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chair. Janice Paul, research division.
Will regard to the confidentiality provisions in part one, just to give
the committee a little bit of background, this stemmed from the..

That in March of this year the United States department of labor issued
essentially a cease and desist letter to the division of employment
security indicating that certain longstanding practices of the division
in providing notices of hearing prior to actual appeals hearings to
attorneys and other members of the general public who had filed for
copies of those notices of hearing under North Carolina public records
law that that dissemination or disclosure of information violated
federal confidentiality regulations and provisions of the social
security act. The letter indicated the division of employment security
continued to disclose that information, to provide those notices of
hearing that there would be sanctions taken by the federal government
against the state of North Carolina which could jeopardize the title
three funding of the social security act that pay for the administration
of North Carolina’s UC program as well as would affect the credit
against the federal unemployment tax act rate or the futile rate of
North Carolina’s employers. A lawsuit subsequently was initiated in
superior court in Wake County. A preliminary injunction ultimately was
issued by superior court judge ordering the division of employment
security to continue providing those notices of hearing. These
particular provisions are designed to bring North Carolina’s public
records law into compliance with federal confidentiality requirements as
well as to prevent any type of negative impact upon North Carolina’s
funding. So what this would do essentially would enable the division of
employment security to stop providing the notices of hearing which the
federal government indicates is in violation of federal law and to
ensure that all of North Carolina’s not only procedures but laws are in
conformity and compliance with federal regulations.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] This is ??? with research division. I’m going to pick
up with the remaining parts of the bill. The next section does several
things. One of which is it authorizes DMV to share social security
number information that is has on driver’s license records subject to
federal requirements with DES which is division of the department of
commerce that ministers the ??? outlaws. The next thing that that part
does is it increases the number of job contacts per week ??? has to
make. Currently it’s two contacts per week on different days so a
minimum of one per day on two days and this is going to change it to
just five job contacts per week but the claimant could do it all on the
same day. It’s going to remove the procedure for reconsideration of a
decision of DES. This was meant to accelerate the finality of the
decisions. And then the last bit of it is truly technical changes,
modernizing some language and changing references so that they correctly
refer to the division of employment services. The next part clarifies
that DES could attach the credit card ????? so if a business hasn’t paid
UI taxes on its employees, DES could attach the credit card, the payment
coming from the credit card processing company, to DES and this
clarifies that DES has this authority to attach these payments. The next
part eliminates the minimum range for weekly benefits. There are several
different ranges, we have one table that’s in the summary that shows you
that as the unemployment rate in North Carolina decreases, the maximum
number of weeks of UI benefits also decrease so during periods of high
unemployment we allow a maximum of twenty weeks, during periods of low
unemployment the max comes down, but for each individual claimant there
was also a different part of the statutes that gave each individual
claimant a number of weeks within a range. Well, when house bill 4 was
done mathematically it turns out that the lower part of those ranges
weren’t actually operable, that people weren’t mathematically ever
getting the bottom of the range, everybody was getting the top except
for just a few people and so what this bill does is it just drops that
inoperable language and it places everybody at the top of the range and
so the number of weeks of UI benefits will still change for all
claimants based on the statewide unemployment rate but there will be no
longer an individualized variable weeks. Everybody will just get a set..

… number of weeks that’s in that table. That’s the maximum. And then the
final item is that it’s going to require a photo ID as a statutory
requirement to receive ?? benefits. USDOL says this is permissible and
is even calling it a good practice. Currently there’s an administrative
practice to require photo ID, and this is going to actually put it in
the statutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, ??. What was that? Senator
Rucho? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chairman, I’m prepared to respond to any
questions or direct them to staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator
Tucker has a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m
not sure mine applies, but we had at some time with seasonal workers
some opportunity to game the system. This doesn’t apply to that, does
it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It has not been changed at all. [SPEAKER CHANGES]
I ain’t got through reading it. It does not apply change to that at all.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. Senator Tucker, we followed the same rules we
established so that we could have everyone with low rates. [SPEAKER
CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Hise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I’m just trying to get some clarification on identifying the
information as confidential information. I’m coming at this, they’ve
done a lot of work in the Government Data Analytics Center in the past
year on being able to pair the information for unemployment with
employer information and those IDs and making sure that we’re not paying
out fraudulent claims that are coming forward. Is there anything about
identifying this information as confidential information that would mean
it couldn’t be sent to outside agencies and used for those analytic
purposes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Which staff member would…? [SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Hise, with regard to this, there are
provisions in North Carolina general statutes as well as in the federal
social security law that enable sharing of information such as the cross
matching that you’re referring to for program integrity purposes. It
enables the sharing of information between agencies as necessary for the
administration of the program, and this is a very limited and just more
specific definition of what constitutes confidential information.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Blue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Senator Rucho, on page 4 – and maybe staff will respond to
this – on page 4 you have a subdivision on judicial review, Subsection
H, and in it you change from the current requirement that it becomes
final 30 days after notification and makes that 30 days after mailing.
Is there some compelling reason for that? And the reason that I ask that
is typically if you’re mailing any notice – legal notice – it is
presumed that the US Postal Service has slowed down a little bit and
there’s a three-day presumption built into any notice like that, and so
I’m wondering whether there’s some compelling reason to change that in
this statute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I think staff has… Ms. ??
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue, the reason for this was it was my
understanding in talking with the division, we were just trying to clean
up the law and make it clear as to when the 30 days started, so I’ll be
happy to look into your question more. It was not intended to be a
policy change per se as trying to clarify and modernize the statute.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Senator Blue? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you
would, I’d appreciate that. The presumption typically is three days
added onto it, and if it’s going to be a difference, I think it needs to
be emphasized so that people don’t miss statutes of limitations.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Members of the committee, any further
questions or comments? Hearing none, all of those in favor of House Bill
1069 as amended, please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER
CHANGES] Opposed, no. Upon the motion of Senator Hise. [SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, sir. We’re done. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, the
meeting is adjourned.